Jason Corsello, a fellow Irregular (and a regular industry analyst at Yankee) picks on two recent Oracle ads - one says its HR applications handle employees in 135 countries, the other 140 countries.

With nothing better to do on a Saturday night, I started wondering what countries 136-140 might be that Oracle marketing felt compelled to come clean on. Assuming their global reach closely approximates my readership (actually I got them beat overall with 178 countries, but let's brag some other time), my blog stats shows the countries below as 136 -140 (click to enlarge).

So I am reading about the rocket science behind Farecast. As they say, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So
airlines invested billions in yield management systems like Sabre. Now consumers
have sophisticated search capabilities via sites like Travelocity and Farecast. And corporations have even better pattern recognition/travel expense management software and negotiated discounts. Mind boggling the effort both sides go through - and in the end most air travel averages to 12c or 13c an air mile.

Know of any other industry which forces long term customers (and routine ones) to make decisions at each transaction level? And spends tons of money trying to optimize at the transaction level versus holistic customer revenue - and is successful only a small part of the time? Breaks most rules of CRM and building customer loyalty.

Ten years ago I sent Delta a simple proposal. Bill me 10c a mile for 100,000 miles each year (and allow me to top off or carry forward). Send me a monthly statement based on usage. No tickets necessary. I would use the statement for client billings and internal accounting. If I choose to upgrade on certain segments charge me 20c a mile. Simplify your systems. Reduce head count in yield management and reservations. Lock me in so I don't comparison shop every time.

They did nothing. Oh, they probably laughed at the simplicity and audacity of the proposal. Southwest comes close to my concept now. With them I still have to buy a ticket for each trip but they have a transparent cap and floor fare on each segment so the comparison shopping is often not worth the effort. I use unused tickets for future flights (with no change fees that Delta and other airlines tack on). 98% of my reservations and credits are on-line. Not quite what I had proposed to Delta, but fairly simple. Southwest now has 80% of my domestic travel business. I hope some day they move to my monthly statement, no ticket vision.

But overall on airline pricing - reminds me of the scene from Indiana Jones where the villain does an impressive, intimidating flurry with his sword and Indy warily just pulls his gun and shoots him. All this technology and effort and bluster on both sides - let's just shoot it and move to 12c a mile.

"Vista comes with a tool that allows you to monitor how well (or how poorly) Vista is working on your computer."

"The score for our PC ....is currently 3.07 and has gone lower than that--as low as
a dismal 1.29. The low score reflects the unfortunate reality of new
operating systems, as well as the (admirably) tough way the Monitor
scores Vista performance."

Can we have similar transparency on other areas the software industry can improve on?

Shai is leaving SAP to pursue personal interests in alternative fuels and other green technology. Not surprised after his comments at Davos. In the past he has also talked about his brutal travel schedule (and time away from kids) and that probably played in his decision. He can join local CA VCs in his new direction.

SAP moved quickly to realign the executive suite, making Leo Apotheker, Deputy CEO.

Shai's biggest contributions to SAP - charisma, and talent recruitment, especially in Palo AltoHis biggest liability - I thought was too much focus on SOA, NetWeaver, platform issues - not enough on applications which is after all SAP's core strength.

Good to see the green world get an energetic, charming champion, though.

Amdahl. Skype. MicroJet Technology. AMD. The technology industry has a tradition of vendors who come along and challenge seemingly bullet-proof incumbents. They deliver a different set of economics - and help squeeze out excessive premiums in various segments of the market. And sure enough incumbents try every FUD, legal maneuver to bad mouth, intimidate such providers. Third party maintenance is today's "plug-compatible" alternative to maintenance offered by software publishers.

Irrespective of what happens to SAP's TomorrowNow unit after Oracle's suit, the cat is out of the bag. While Oracle in its suit makes the point that "the economics, and the logic, (of SAP's TN pricing) simply did not add up", actually the economics of software maintenance are extremely transparent.

I have said before software maintenance reflects the most empty calories in IT spend from a buyer's perspective and here's why:

a) paying for bug fixes smacks of "double jeopardy". The software industry delivers shoddy code and charges a license fee for it (with minimal warranty), then expects buyers to pay maintenance to get bug fixes.b) most enhancements (from at least the larger) software vendors deliver tend to be "me-too" and years late. Ask Oracle's CAI partners from a few years ago the inherent tension in worrying about Oracle introducing a competitive product while also acting as a partner. I was aghast a few years ago to hear an SAP executive say "shame on us if we cannot learn from our application partners". The charges against Microsoft from smaller vendors which partnered with it are well documented. Larger vendors do not pay royalties to the innovative vendors, yet charge customers for it like it was original IPc) Many periodic enhancements, especially in core ERP modules, are driven by statutory changes. The algorithms are publicly available, not proprietary IP of any software vendord) During implementation before they go live on software, few customers tax support lines. Indeed they are under another "double jeopardy" - paying the systems integrator (often Oracle or SAP Consulting) in addition to paying maintenance.e) Similarly after year 5, the support demands of most customers drop off as they stabilize their production environment. Fair maintenance pricing would be in a bell curve - gradually ramp up years 1 and 2, gradually ramp down starting in year 5. But today the software industry expects full rates from day one through terminationf) Most software vendors have moved maintenance of older releases offshore to India, E. Europe etc, but have kept the savings without passing any of that along.

I could go on, but you get my drift. Maintenance, direct from most software vendors, is over priced by a long shot. Customers should have alternatives. Just because you bought a Porsche should not mean you go to the Porsche dealer for every service. For peace of mind or better service you may still want to, but you have a choice to also go to your local garage.

If Oracle's action against SAP spooks third party maintenance, I would like to see the Feds get involved. During the PeopleSoft takeover battle, the DOJ tried to stop Oracle on antitrust grounds. It chose to define the software market very narrowly and Oracle easily proved it was not being anti-competitive. This time around the Feds should use maintenance as the filter. Oracle (and other software companies) have an overwhelmingly dominant position around that revenue stream around their software.

The government action against IBM in 1969 led to the formation of today's software industry. And it has been a glorious one. No reason why similar action today against the software industry will not spawn new services and software options - and make the maintenance from the software publishers themselves much better value. It's not about being mean to SAP or Oracle or Microsoft (or IBM again). It's about customer choice.

Update: Sure enough the F word - Feds - got the most attention in my post. Several emails to me chided me for dragging the government in. Ok, so if you have read my SOX rants, I am not a big government/compliance fan. My note above was more on poor payback from maintenance and I brought in the Feds towards the end of my note and only "If Oracle's action against SAP spooks third party maintenance..."

As leaders, I want Oracle and SAP and MS and others
to be more responsible and allow for more choice around maintenance (as
they do around implementation services). When I say leaders, I mean it. The top 4 have sw
revenues of $ 15 to 40 b each. They are big, global players and have
responsibilities just like chemical and auto companies do. Their own willingness to open up would be far more rational than government intervention. Most
customers would likely continue to buy from them, but those customers that did
not see value could move on. This is about customer choice. Today we don't have
it around maintenance.

SAP has not reacted much to Oracle's lawsuit. Mike Prosceno of SAP shared with a handful of Irregulars an advance copy of the SAP statement on Friday: "SAP will not comment other than to make it clear to our customers, prospects, investors, employees and partners that SAP will aggressively defend against the claims made by Oracle in the lawsuit. SAP will remain focused on delivering products and services -- including those from TomorrowNow -- that ensure success for our customers." - but little else officially from SAP or Oracle.

But I have heard or read a wide range of speculation and chatter in the last 48 hours -

"This is SAP's version of HP "pretexting" nightmare""If Oracle's IP is so easy to access, they should fire their security administrators""Customers allow their service providers to use their access rights all the time. Why this fuss over TomorrowNow if the customers contracts with Oracle were still current?""Oracle's prose is awfully floral for a legal document""Does Oracle know what firms like Accenture and IBM download/modify when they are SIs on customer implementations around Oracle technology. Is Oracle going to sue IBM?""Hopefully this will change SAP's pristine perception of itself""Do TomorrowNow folks know how easy it it track IP addresses? What were they thinking?""I think whoever from TomorrowNow used the sign on name of "testyomama" deserves to be on Jay Leno" "Do you know how much SAP IP Oracle is privy to? Oracle is dominant DBMS in SAP shops. Oracle must be at every conference SAP hosts""What's the difference between this and when Oracle offers to support Red Hat products at 50% off?""Does Oracle really want its pricing made public as during the PeopleSoft battle?"

As they say there are three sides to every story. He said, she said and the truth. Sure we will be hearing some of each over the next few weeks.

Readers: I think I will need multiple language versions of the Pot Kettle black expression...

Oracle has filed suit against SAP for "corporate theft on a grand scale". The complaint alleges "software and technical support materials, which have limited download
rights, were downloaded en masse from an IP address originating in
Bryan, Texas, home of SAP's TomorrowNow (SAP TN) subsidiary, which
offers support to PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards customers."

It is a sad day for the industry. I was an expert witness for PeopleSoft during its suit against Oracle during the hostile takeover process. I saw the two sides spend over $ 250 million in legal fees. Customers suffered as both sides were distracted for a long time.

SAP needs to come down heavy on the alleged misuse, if true. I also hope Oracle does not overblow this in the media in the coming months.

Andrew Nelson, the CEO of TomorrowNow made a nice case for third
party maintenance in his guest column on Monday. Hopefully, he does not support questionably obtained or developed IP.

Third party maintenance is an important new trend in the enterprise software business. It could stall if customers get spooked by this. All the more reason to feel glum for the industry today.